Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Polynomial-time reducibility (≤_P) is transitive — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Causation
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→If any single NP-complete problem has a polynomial time algorithm, then all problems in NP have polynomial time algorithms

    Polynomial-time reducibility (≤_P) is transitive

    CausationTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    CausationTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Modality & Possibility2 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Causation
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Composing polynomial time reductions yields another polynomial time reductionEvery problem in NP is polynomial-time reducible to any NP-complete problemIf any single NP-complete problem has a polynomial time algorithm, then all prob...

    Similar

    Polynomial-time reducibility ≤_P is transitive99%The polynomial-time reducibility relation is transitive.88%Many-one reducibility implies Turing reducibility (A ≤_m B implies A ≤...80%The polynomial time many-one reducibility relation ≤_P is a preorder (...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: computational-complexity
    View source passageHide passage
    \(\sc{INDEPENDENT}\ \sc{SET}\ \) Given a graph \(G = \langle V,E \rangle\) and a natural number \(k \leq \lvert V\rvert\), does there exist a set of vertices \(V' \subseteq V\) of cardinality \(\geq k\) such that no two vertices in \(V'\) are connected by an edge? \(\sc{VERTEX}\ \sc{COVER}\ \) Given a graph \(G = \langle V,E \rangle\) and a natural number \(k \leq \lvert V\rvert\), does there exist a set of vertices \(V' \subseteq V\) of cardinality \(\leq k\) such that for each edge \(\langle u

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective